Many female passengers this week are disgusted with the males on board, as well they should be.

She offers the Titanic as an example of how things should work on shipwrecks:

When the Titanic sank, the men followed the “women and children” first rule. In fact, you were more likely to survive as a third class female passenger than a richer male one. But that was a century ago.

She is a bit murky on exactly why men have an obligation to do what the men on Titanic did. She makes vague references to honor and personal responsibility:

In 1912 it was a different world. Personal responsibility was still the main ethos of the day. People took care of their neighbours; they did not wait for government to do it for them. And people had a code of honour that included helping others when you could.

But if the reason men should sacrifice and even die in the place of women is due to honor and selflessness, a woman writing this is being incredibly rude and crass. If men have no obligation to sacrifice for unknown women but often do anyway out of graciousness, women demanding more of this is quite simply despicable. Women demanding that men give up their seats in lifeboats is the life and death equivalent to showing up at someone’s home and demanding hospitality (especially if the person doing the demanding knows they will never be in a position to have the same demand made of them). While Sheila and several of the women commenting on her blog are essentially asking men “Don’t you think you should be brave and selfless and offer to die for me now?”, an uncouth and entitled houseguest might only ask “Don’t you think you should loan us your car? Don’t you think we should sleep in your bed instead of in the guest room?” Even if you are a strong proponent of hospitality, once this attitude of unbelievable entitlement by guests takes hold you can no longer be a gracious host. This profound ungraciousness by women like Sheila is as much to blame for the death of chivalry as feminism is.

It is worth noting that Sheila makes these demands from men while accusing them of being selfish and worrying about what others will do for them:

Somehow we have lost that. It is no longer about honour and what we should do for others; it has become what others should do for us.

Telling others they need to do more for you (or people like you) while lecturing them in this way is the height of hypocrisy.

Another possible argument for WACF is that men owe this to women, and it therefore isn’t a gift men can give any more than paying the rent is a gift to one’s landlord. This would fit with the unthankful and demanding attitude we see. Sheila’s syndicated column might not be her being profoundly ungracious, it could be simply a case of the landlord demanding the rent. A commenter on Sheila’s site named Rachel made this very argument:

Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.

She just said that women’s lives are worth more than men’s lives. It also implies that fathers aren’t all that valuable beyond walking wallets and sperm donors. This blazes entirely past radical feminist all the way to female supremacist bigot. Sheila didn’t challenge this assertion, and my initial take was that it wouldn’t be fair to question Sheila’s stance on this simply because she didn’t refute it. The internet is a big place, and just because someone says something on your blog and you don’t refute it doesn’t mean you agree with them. However, a reader named Fidel did challenge Rachel on her argument:

Keep the population going … I get it.

Rachel, look up stats for abortion in America since Roe vs Wade ….

Sheila was outraged that Fidel challenged Rachel on her women are worth more than men argument. Unlike her (non) response to Rachel on the topic, she not only responded but actually scolded Fidel:

Fidel, what is the matter with you? Are you insinuating that Rachel doesn’t know about abortion? Of course she doesn’t support abortion. This is a Christian blog; many here have worked in the pro-life movement. If you want to participate in a conversation, that’s fine, but just insulting people is not helping anything, and is just showing that you want confrontation rather than a real discussion. To insinuate that Rachel is somehow ignorant of abortion is ridiculous. If you want to insult the commenters (and Rachel is a frequent one), perhaps it would be better for you to read more of this blog and see more of what she stands for.

Why should Fidel have assumed Rachel was a good Christian woman? Rachel’s Darwinian female supremacy argument wasn’t Christian in nature. And by defending Rachel’s good standing on the blog in this specific context she also seems to be lending her weight to Rachel’s argument. She actually says Fidel was insulting for the way he challenged Rachel’s men are worth less than women argument. Does she not feel that Rachel’s original statement was far more insulting than Fidel’s very measured response?

Sheila didn’t just defend Rachel’s comments once, she did so twice. Commenter Tom directly quoted Rachel’s women are worth more than men argument in his comment:

” they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.”

That might matter if women weren’t aborting their unborn babies to the tune of a million per year.

Tom, this point has already been dealt with. Did you read the comments? This is a pro-life blog, and just because abortion is now practiced (an abhorrence and a tragedy) does not give anyone else the excuse to not do the right thing. It looks like you’re advocating a race to the lowest common denominator.

Elsewhere in the comments Sheila indicates that she isn’t completely sure WACF is merely about Rachel’s Darwinian logic:

I’m not completely sure that was the origin of WACF. I think it was more an acknowledgement that men were stronger, and that honour demanded it. For instance, it applied to older women, too, even those who were past childbearing age. I’ll have to think on that more.

Sheila isn’t sure why women like her shouldn’t be called on to do what she so crassly demands from men, but she’ll rationalize a reason and presumably get back to us. But this still leaves the question; why does Sheila feel that men owe her this? She obviously feels strongly about this, or she wouldn’t have made this the topic of her syndicated column. Does she agree with Rachel that men’s lives are worth less than the lives of women, and that “less valuable people” need to stay away from lifeboats until all of the “more valuable people” have been rescued? Is her disagreement with Rachel merely on the logic used to determine that men’s lives are worth less, and not the fundamental conclusion? Or does she believe that men aren’t actually obligated to die in the place of women but have done so anyway out of an extreme sense of graciousness, something she demands more of in a most ungracious way? If Sheila doesn’t agree with Rachel that men’s lives are worth less than the lives of women, why did she so passionately attack those who criticized this line of argument while not bothering to point out the error in the argument itself?

I still want to give the benefit of the doubt to Sheila on this. I would prefer to assume that she simply has astonishingly bad manners, and not that she is a female supremacist bigot. Yet the combination of her own words as well as her selective silence makes me wonder. She can of course clarify this for us if she wishes to on her own blog.

107 Responses to Does Sheila Gregoire think her own life is worth more than yours?

“I would prefer to assume that she simply has astonishingly bad manners, and not that she is a female supremacist bigot.”
Astonishingly bad manners and willful ignorance. She clearly hasn’t thought through the logical consequences of her beliefs, and there’s a good chance she won’t or can’t. It would mean discovering something ugly about herself.

Get used to the sounds of silence on this Dalrock, because what you have asked in this line of articles goes beyond what the female brain is capable of processing. The compartmentalization of the female brain is such that the mind will process the decision first, then the rationalization. For woman, she has already decided that the device must be broken to serve her needs, she then rationalizes based on whatever convenient or socially accepted norm will provide her:

Note that the sources of these responses are 100% other women (her social equals). If a device should disagree with said rationalizations she will simply insult the device as being of poor quality or defective somehow, or denying the device has any justification for rejecting its destruction.

A man asking a woman to rationalize her decisions is akin to a Mississippi plantation slave in the 1800s why he is being whipped. The WHY is irrelevant to the master, because the device asking the question is irrelevant to the master. It wasn’t until OTHER slavemasters starting asking why that a discussion took place. And unfortunately, no woman will EVER have the conscience of former slavemasters who forcilbly abolished slavery.

Again, you’re attacking what could be a follower. Men do have honor. That’s why shaming _works_ with us. We even shame each other. An American drill sergeant, unable to use real physical punishment, relies on shaming because it works with men. It is part of our essential nature. As Christians we also have duties and those duties are structured in shaming language.

She admits that the game has changed and that women’s rejection of their own roles has created that situation. In fact I’m somewhat flummoxed by your concentration on what is overall good in the article and not concentrating on the atrociously bad.

“The stream of feminism that says the genders are the same—and granted, not all feminists believe this—is an attempt to distort reality to achieve a political aim. ”

Feminism doesn’t believe that women are equal, it believes women are _better_ and _all_ not some feminism believes in the same. You can’t be feminist and not believe that. Feminism has no meaning if it does not put women first. Feminism has absolutely no basis in Christianity and should be avoided like the plague it is.

you know, I wouldn’t entirely mind sacrificing my life in an opportunity for heroism… for me its because this life isn’t so damn great anyway, and being immortalized for a selfless act appeals to me. Gonna die anyway, so going out a hero seems more desirable to me than going out with a whisper, forgotten in the annals of humanity.

What offends me is the lack of gratitude or appreciation. Especially from the ‘Christian’ girls.

When Jesus died for our sins, sacrificing His life for others, He was held in great reverence. Even 2000+ years later, people sing his praises. The humbling effect that a person has at the acceptance of this sacrifice is usually profound. PROFOUND. It even inspires people to change the way they live, adding more gratitude and love and humility.

Similarly, this sort of response should be echoed in the setting of a man truly laying down his life and going to his own death for someone else. Reverence.

But see, men know that they will get none of that. Just like we have sniffed out what a bad deal marriage is, we have sniffed out what a bad deal chivalry is, especially at such a high cost.

Nobility and honor are lofty concepts… but as men, we also appreciate fair business. No point worrying about dishonoring ourselves if we are going to be held in contempt and disrespect anyway, whether we do good or bad. No sense trying to attain honor we’ll never get.

Our default position is “every man for himself” which is a basic natural law, and we have not been inspired to any higher standard by today’s women.

I would note, however, that we can find our men in the Military to have much more selfless behavior, saving each others’ lives, not leaving others behind. We see great heroes in the military. Why? Because there, they’ll get honor, and fight for their valued fellow soldier, who would do the same for them.

Ladies- want us to do that as civilians? Stop heaping insults and disrespect on us, and start asking yourselves why you suck so terribly at offering anybody any sort of inspiration. Then change your own shit. Only for women who directly honor me would I make that sort of sacrifice.

Don’t leave us beaten down by your own hand and then wonder why we don’t rise up.

No point worrying about dishonoring ourselves if we are going to be held in contempt and disrespect anyway, whether we do good or bad.

Not 100% on board with this, but it gets at an important truth. You can’t shame someone when your default position is that he’s a dumb, childish, brutal, uncouth, vulgar, criminal, helpless, weak, cowardly fool. Whose successes are unfairly won, whose property needs to be seized and redistributed, and who stands in the way of the glorious utopia about to be built by his betters any day now never mind that ever-growing crushing debt.

If that’s your baseline, you’ve really left yourself no room for further shaming. A man on a sinking ship, confronted with a woman demanding a WACF policy, would lose nothing by throwing her aside. (Actually, one could be forgiven for being tempted to go the full Lord Herbert of Cherbury.)

This is true, and it’s possible she will take those next few logical steps, but there’s a good chance she won’t. She wrote, “I’ll have to think on that more.” No doubt she will think, but she may not dare think independently. Look at her audience, her supporters. They’ll have heaps of rationalizations to offer her. It will take courage to look her entire support network in the eye and say, “You’re wrong.” Most women are deeply dependent on their pep squads.

Consider the possibility that WACF was a quick statistical cheat to maximize overall survival when there wasn’t enough time to determine which passengers were individually most in need. Isn’t it true that adult men are more likely to survive in the water than women and children? Note that in the Titanic disaster, only 14 people were still alive when they were pulled from the water. All but one were men.

The real question is whether WACF would or should be observed in a situation where survival is impossible. In space, for instance. The rationale for saving children so they could have a chance to live would still be strong. But women? I agree that men shouldn’t be allowed to push them aside — might is not right — but surely women should be made to draw straws with us. I can’t breathe in space any better than a woman can.

No point worrying about dishonoring ourselves if we are going to be held in contempt and disrespect anyway, whether we do good or bad. No sense trying to attain honor we’ll never get.

This is pretty much my own perspective and practice on this as well.

it’s quite hard to shame me, really, I can’t be arsed about what people think at this stage. And that is actually quite liberating. I think that liberation is a threat to some — so be it. But it is liberation just the same. Liberation from insanity — the insanity of being shamed based on “honor” in a society and civilization that hates you just because you are male (and, especially, if you are male and white). In this context, permitting oneself to be shamed in this way is simply indulging in self-destructive masochism.

“Feminism doesn’t believe that women are equal, it believes women are _better_ and _all_ not some feminism believes in the same. You can’t be feminist and not believe that. Feminism has no meaning if it does not put women first. Feminism has absolutely no basis in Christianity and should be avoided like the plague it is.”

Feminism doesn’t believe that. WOMEN believe that. The fundamental problem, and why there is no common ground to be found, is that these issues, these fundamental issues of female supremacy, are NOT grounded in feminism. They are ground in the essential nature of the Western Woman that has been instilled in them since at least the 1800s by women like Francis Willard. Feminism is the political representation of a womans essential nature, radical feminism is biological.

This is not a woman vs. feminist issue anymore because women have bought into their supremacy Hook, Line, and Sinker. Was it ever? That’s debateable.

Slavery was inefficient, and the war between the states had little to do with nobly removing it. No other country killed its own citizens in such large numbers to embrace industrial change.

The matriarchy has the most to lose from the Greater Depression, as Doug Casey titled it. When there is no more money to redistribute,the wimmin will suffer even more greatly than men. At that point, Stella’s groove won’t be worth a damn.

The fact of it is, while we and others debate the concept of WACF, the world of (in)humanity has left us behind. As discussed in the previous thread, the default position of the worlds major disaster response organisations is now WACO (Women and children only)(A search for an NGO which doesn’t essentially, if not explicitly, follow this script, is about as likely to be successful as a search for a christian church tough on divorce). This is the shipwreck equivalent of having enough boats for all souls aboard, but not allowing the males onto them for any reason. At this point in time, those males are still permitted to brave the icy waters and take their changes, but I’m sure that in future will change as well.

In this light it can be seen why Sheila et aliae can with all seriousness and gravity discuss their outrage at the failure of men, from what is arguably not now an extremist position. After all, they’ll be satisfied if a mere majority of males died. Who knows, perhaps if the displayed willingness for death is not satisfyingly apparent, they may have to change their policy to WACO also.

I simply didn’t believe that any hag, no matter how deluded, could write stuff like that and call herself Christian, so I followed the link. It’s true. I really thought Dalrock was doing some sort of parody here. To whoever it was up-thread who worried about losing a potential follower, no need to worry. She has the PC down pat – she’s buried that post in trivia, and tellingly it’s the only one that does not allow comments any more. Every other post I checked, older as well as younger, does. Seems she knows she revealed a lot about herself and the utter contemptible ugliness of her beliefs and isn’t up to owning up to it. No loss to anybody.

I really thought Dalrock was doing some sort of parody here. To whoever it was up-thread who worried about losing a potential follower, no need to worry. She has the PC down pat – she’s buried that post in trivia, and tellingly it’s the only one that does not allow comments any more. Every other post I checked, older as well as younger, does. Seems she knows she revealed a lot about herself and the utter contemptible ugliness of her beliefs and isn’t up to owning up to it. No loss to anybody.

I wouldn’t be surprised if she ended up pulling all of the comments on that page. She did this once before when I called her out on her reply to a woman on youtube who said she divorced for “emotional abuse”. Here is the post where I called her out on that. Here is the original youtube page. Note that comments have been removed/disabled. Here is the google cache of the youtube page showing the comments I referenced in my post.

Has she ever given any reason for disabling comments, or at least even addressed disabling them? She can if she wants, she doesn’t have to if she doesn’t–I don’t own her blog or youtube channel, so I don’t want to seem as if she’s obligated to do anything a nameless, random commenter says–but still, if she hasn’t…:/

“No point worrying about dishonoring ourselves if we are going to be held in contempt and disrespect anyway, whether we do good or bad. No sense trying to attain honor we’ll never get.”

“This is pretty much my own perspective and practice on this as well.

it’s quite hard to shame me, really, I can’t be arsed about what people think at this stage. And that is actually quite liberating. I think that liberation is a threat to some — so be it. But it is liberation just the same. Liberation from insanity — the insanity of being shamed based on “honor” in a society and civilization that hates you just because you are male (and, especially, if you are male and white). In this context, permitting oneself to be shamed in this way is simply indulging in self-destructive masochism.”

Yuup, I agree.

I’m not at all sure even if I would get greatly appreciated, posthumously, for self sacrificing for women who are strangers to me in a modern day Titanic situation I’d do so, I think I wouldn’t given feminism’s attacking any male primacy or privileges at all, but I sure as hell wouldn’t if it would just be taken for granted, or even belittled, which it would.

The “we need women to procreate the species” argument sounds very weak to a man, when it comes from the gender more likely spends a large and increasing portion of their fertile years chasing random cock. From them, it sounds more like: “you need to die so that I can continue getting my badboy fix, abort the inconvenient babies I don’t want, and extort child support from some guy who’s not the father.” It’s not just reasonable for good men to fight for a position in a life raft. The way society is falling apart, I’d call it a christian duty.

Dalrock -“I wouldn’t be surprised if she ended up pulling all of the comments on that page. She did this once before when I called her out on her reply to a woman on youtube who said she divorced for “emotional abuse”. ”

Interestingly Alte & Walsh do the same thing, they both not only ban users, but also pull all their comments

ybm’s comment at 12:45 appears full of extremist rhetoric, with its comparison of human maleness to slavery

but the bible twice addresses such seeming nonsense, providing instruction and truth that is exactly opposite to the comfy deceptions with which we are innundated in this world (the world identified biblically as being under the control of satan)

in Isaiah 3, God laments through Isaiah:

“O my people! Children are their oppressors, and women rule over them”

in the NT when jesus is informed that his mother and brothers were waiting outside, he made his familial relationships clear:

“Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my mother and brother and sister”

God supports the nuclear family ONLY under male/father leadership, b/c without fatherhood there is NO family, except in the eyes of this matriarchal world

christ made explicit that the human family is NOT to be our pre-eminent relational structure (and, indeed, “family” is worshipped by modern christians, and especially pastors and preachers — “Focus on the Famly” ad infinitum)

likewise, God through his prophet Isaiah informed that “patriarchy” is a con, and that as in the ancient world, the true rulers of this planet are womenandchildren (under sway of fallen ‘principalities’)

the actual status of masculinity is one of oppression and covert enslavement, a status even more heightened for those men that God/Christ considers “my people”

females demand (and receive, by force of their governments) supremacist status over males in every sphere of life — access to jobs and education, life expectancy, domination of public conversation via media, access to social welfare programs, vastly reduced vulnerability to the Justsis Sistem, almost absolute control over our sons, and on and on

. . .while also demanding that the Lesser Gender give up their lives so that the Greater Gender can continue to be, well, Greater

that is subjugation, bordering on slavery, and the fact that a tiny percentage of males are ensconced at the top (doing the will of women collectively) does not change the baseline status of the human male — indeed, it presents a rationalization for continuance of the bondage

A big problem with Sheila is that she isn’t half as smart as she thinks she is. She has some worthless degrees (sociology with women’s studies? Impressive!) and a popular blog and ministry, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion with her because she has too much invested in her Christo-feminist, egalitarian dogma (read: money generation and ego).

As I said on the other thread, I only tried to have a discussion, wasn’t rude and didn’t swear, yet she put me in moderation essentially for disagreeing with her and challenging her and, most recently, responded by deleting any further comments from me on her post, Romance Novels: Dangerous, Harmless, or Just Fun?.

Notice that she says she will delete “any further comments” on the topic, yet the one from Jason agreeing with her and being prudish about nudity gets through fine. She also accuses me, yet again, of “defending porn”. Again, no clue as to how to have a rational discussion.

@Ray
“ybm’s comment at 12:45 appears full of extremist rhetoric, with its comparison of human maleness to slavery

but the bible twice addresses such seeming nonsense,”

Oh you 🙂

What can I say, I type much more forcefully than I speak in real life. I guess topics like these bring out the firebrand in me. I’m a g*dd*mn CGA and CFA in real life, this is how I make up for my dull work!

There is a category for ‘bigot’, where people similar to Sheila Gregoire have been registered. While it is up to the panel there to decide if she warrants registration, I want each of you to submit a claim in the form above.

CL, I just spent almost an hour wading through three threads over there. It was not a constructive use of time. But I did see your postings on the romance novel thread, and frankly, I don’t think Gregoire really bothered to read what you wrote. Strawman bashing, to be brief. Still the double standard on porn – men must not even look at certain statues in the Louvre, apparently, but women get to decide how much soft core porn is OK for them to be exposed to. A romance novel that “only” has a few porny parts to it is ok, because women can skip over them. Well, by that standard, then “Twilight” is acceptable, right?

On the plus side, it appears that Gregoire has backed away a little from “porn is a Get Out Of Marriage Free” card. She now suggests that women separate from men who use porn, but not necessarily divorce them. Which reminds me, in one of her replies to van Rooinek, Gregoire trotted out some statistics on “sex and men and porn”. There was no cite, though, nothing to indicate where her numbers came from. That is really unprofessional. It is the kind of thing that would get a paper by a college freshman graded down. It’s one step from just making stuff up. And it pretty much demolishes any claim she can make to being serious about her research.

More generally, in my experience a lot of church going women are “unconscious feminists”. They talk a good line about not being feminists, but they act just like all other women in the larger society. (The divorce and abortion rates are but one example). There could be a lot of reasons for this. Maybe they never examined their own beliefs. Maybe they grew up in feminist households. And maybe, just maybe, some of them like the perks of feminism, they just don’t want to be labeled as one.

There is much talk of how men are to act honorably and respectfully. But there is no reciprocal expectation that women act similarly, with grace, humility and submission. At least that was not mentioned.

It pains me to say this as a Christian man, but the Christian church no longer dominates western culture. It’s been discarded in favor of secular feminism.

Deti, I understand your point, but here’s the trouble I have with the way that it is often phrased: I often hear people in the “manosphere”, or whatever you want to call it, criticizing the church for not teaching women to be submissive or graceful or whatever. But they say “the church” does it. How? There’s a very large female Christian blogosphere, for instance, and Darlene Schacht from Time Warp Wife came out with an ebook this week doing exactly that. All of the women’s Bible studies that I’ve read focus on developing godly character. In my church, godly character development and humility are taught. At the marriage conferences where I teach, run by FamilyLife, one of the largest family ministries in North America, all of these things are taught explicitly.

So I guess I have to ask: who, exactly, are you criticizing? I think it’s an easy criticism to make, but I personally do not see it. I don’t see it in the women’s Bible studies that happen at churches all over the continent on Wednesday mornings, or Thursday mornings. I don’t see it in Christian books written for women. I don’t see it in the Christian blogosphere. But I do see the criticism often.

Sheila claims she doesn’t run into this kind of attitude, yet when she made a videolog telling women they had obligations to their husbands too, she received a torrent of “you are telling us not to be true to ourselves” emails. I know this because Sheila did a second videolog addressing these concerns. I wrote a post on it, and she followed up with a post of her own. In the comments of her own post, she acknowledged how bad this really is. Commenter Lori quoted me “Christian women as a group are not used to being told they have any obligations. Ever.” and stated that she thought this was insightful. Sheila replied:

Joy and Lori–I know. That is an OUCH comment, isn’t it? But I do think it’s true. In general, the church is very hard on men and very easy on women, and yet it is women who instigate most divorces. We need to get back to the message that we have a responsibility and an obligation to make our marriages work, even if those marriages do not make us happy. But that goes against conventional wisdom, and seems mean. We really are fighting upstream!

So when Sheila says she doesn’t run into this in the church or the blogosphere, she is flat out lying.

I do think the 38% divorce stat is erroneous. I’ve looked at the research, and it pertains to self-identified “born again” Christians, as opposed to those who are actually attending an evangelical church. It’s thrown around a lot, but it’s not accurate.

I referenced the same stats in October on her blog, and she made the same denial. Then I provided a link proving that it was in fact measuring regular church attendees. Anything which goes against her view of how things work is simply denied.

A big problem with Sheila is that she isn’t half as smart as she thinks she is. She has some worthless degrees (sociology with women’s studies? Impressive!) and a popular blog and ministry, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion with her because she has too much invested in her Christo-feminist, egalitarian dogma (read: money generation and ego).

Dalrock, here is a posting by Gregoire that discusses how women should have sex with their husbands even when they don’t feel like it, and that it isn’t rape either. It is most interesting that she has to explain the difference between rape and “sex when the wife doesn’t feel like it”.

Yet as I mentioned yesterday, I’ve had a ton of visitors from sites lately that have been mocking the Christian view of marriage, and that’s one of the primary lines of attack: I’m telling women it’s okay if their husbands rape them. Give. Me. A. Break. Now, I know where they’re coming from, since I’ve done a Masters in Sociology with an emphasis on Women’s Studies, too. I’ve read all that feminist literature that calls all sex rape, and while it totally messed up my sex life in the early part of my marriage, I’ve thankfully been able to leave it behind and realize how great sex in marriage is.

There’s no way anyone could get an MA in Sociology with a focus on “women’s studies” and not be marinated in feminism. It’s just not possible. It’s laudable that she was able to put away all that “heternormative penetrative sex is rape” (or as the RadFems put it, PiV is rape). It’s a credit to her that she was able to do so. However, it is also obvious where some of her other attitudes, premises, and assumptions come from: she is still carrying some feminism around in her head. I’m sure she thinks of herself as an anti-feminist, traditional type Christian – but she’s not. Not really. But this combination of feminism and traditional thinking leads right to the entitled, “I demand that men die for me” attitude. No, she did not state it that baldly, but that’s what she said.

I find it amusing to see her waving credentials around, given how pathetic they are. MA’s in sociology are a dime a dozen. Ditto “women’s studies”. Those degrees are attendance awards, “I showed up for N course hours of indoctrination and kept my nose clean while regurgitating the brainwashing I was spoon fed”. No real academic or research rigor required.

Shiela Gregoire responds to a feminist with this:I have stopped calling myself a feminist, although I do believe in equality, because the term has become so tainted politically. I believe women should have opportunities and choices, but I do not believe that we are superior. And I was so poisoned in my postgraduate work that I have come to really hate the term. But perhaps I should have qualified that better.

I think it is safe to state that at the very least, Gregoire was a feminist not long ago, and not too far of a stretch to state that she still is one. And this explains pretty much everything, especially the entitled, “Men should die for me!” attitude.

Nick: She admits that the game has changed and that women’s rejection of their own roles has created that situation. In fact I’m somewhat flummoxed by your concentration on what is overall good in the article and not concentrating on the atrociously bad.

That’s the thing, she didn’t. She may have admitted that the game has changed but her and her female commentors never truly owned up to the why. They continue to push it off on those other ‘bad’ feminist. Not them, they’re the good feminist, see. Radical feminist is a redundant term. Feminism is radical. They will never own up to their part in the problem, Deep down they know they can’t. If they admitted the smallest concession that they may have contributed to this crap – the house of cards will crumble. Thus they will always push it off on the ‘bad’ feminist. Nick, the best lies have a portion of truth. The fact that the article may be mostly good only allows the hidden evil to remain. I’m glad that Dalrock takes the time to expose the evil instead of just swallowing the whole morsel.

As far as the WACF debate, my very unPC grandfather gave me some very good advice when I was a wee lad:
If a woman acts like a lady, treat her like a lady;
If a woman acts like a man, treat her like a man.
Too bad that advice would likely park my butt in jail if practiced today. My chivalry is reserved for ladies not for men with tits. When women as a whole exhibit ladylike behavior my chivalry will return. Until then, I’d push every one of those self important ungrateful harpies out of the way on my way to the lifeboat.

Good find Anonymous!
Shiela Gregoire responds to a feminist with this:
I have stopped calling myself a feminist, although I do believe in equality, because the term has become so tainted politically. I believe women should have opportunities and choices, but I do not believe that we are superior. And I was so poisoned in my postgraduate work that I have come to really hate the term. But perhaps I should have qualified that better.

Women should have opportunities and choice. How noble. While completely discounting the millions of men throughout history that only had one choice: work or starve. Until women are ready to accept a work or starve choice for themselves without all the safety nets, they are in effect calling for female superiority. They are wanting opportunities that men don’t have.

She stopped calling herself a feminist. Isn’t that grand. In wymin speak that must make it so then. The term no longer suits her current purposes so lets adopt another one. Remember, she’s trying to portray herself as one of the ‘good’ feminist. If it walks like a duck…

[D: Never a bad idea. In linux I’m able to print HTML pages to PDF docs as well. I’m guessing windows does this too. Did you grab one of the google cache page of youtube? That is one which one day will go away. I have my own copy, but an extra backup on your side couldn’t hurt.]

I tried to find where she said that to me but can’t find it at the moment so I could be remembering wrong, but I’m pretty certain that’s what she said one of her degrees was (she has several, another being a “Master’s degree in men’s and women’s sexuality”, whatever that is).

@AR

Judging by her responses to me, she either doesn’t read anything I’ve said, can’t comprehend it, or is being deliberately obtuse.

“TFH: What part of ‘women don’t understand cause and effect’ is still in doubt?”

Sheila understands it well enough to know exactly what the “effect” would be if she spat upon her supporters. We can get it, but we generally use it only in our own interests, which is one of my primary gripes with women. We have the brains to accomplish much, but we aren’t penalized for being unproductive. Most of us take this as an opportunity either to remain ignorant, or to use our intelligence very selectively, in the pursuit of our own gratification. We become not only unproductive, but actively counterproductive as well. Aren’t women the best illustration of “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing?” We wreak a whole lot of havoc by willfully limiting our knowledge.

A more accurate statement from me would have been, “She clearly hasn’t thought through the logical consequences TO SOMEONE BESIDES HERSELF, of her beliefs…” because she couldn’t care less.

Rmaxd, I am willing to give her credit for putting away toxic ideas. Having spent some more time on the site, I’ll suggest that Gregoire does say some useful things, such as the idea that a wife should be a friend to her husband and vice versa. That’s very constructive. And she’s taking a stronger line it appears in recent months against women using sex as a doggy treat – withholding sex as a lever over a man is something she’s clearly stated opposition to. She can admit when she’s wrong, up to a point. That’s commendable. Up to a point…

@suz
Your last comment is the reason what is said in the manosphere is female childish selfishness. What you have discribed with sheila is also normal for women. The whole concept of liberation and femminism in general was to change society to allow this savage primative behavior to go unchecked by civilized society. Her behavior explains why women didn’t vote and were never in positions of responsibility.
There is no fix per say in changing women the fix is changing society to reflect the reality at hand.

Somewhat off topic, but honor has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. The problem is that you folks are talking about reputation, not honor. They are not the same. Reputation is what other people believe of you. Honor is what you know yourself to be.

“The whole concept of liberation and femminism in general was to change society to allow this savage primative behavior to go unchecked by civilized society. Her behavior explains why women didn’t vote and were never in positions of responsibility.”

The libertarian in me says women should damn well be able to vote, but you are correct. Most women aren’t responsible enough to vote, for two reasons: one, we’ve never had to be responsible for “the greater good,” and two, even the most moral, compassionate and responsible of us are greedy and grasping by nature. At one time, we had to be, for our own children. In first world societies, that material need no longer exists, yet we still have the drive.

Elspeth’s Christian Feminism Watch may be a worthy place for Sheila Gregoire. For example, Sheila seems to use feminist interpretations for Paul’s command that women be silent in church. She probably belongs at Elspeth’s site. I don’t think she is a real bigot, for Paul Elam’s site. She just doesn’t think clearly.

‘they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.’

Therefore only prefertile girls and fertile women need to be treated with extra care. Post-menopausal women can be treated with the same disregard as expendable menfolk.

William: ““Needing more woman to keep the population going” is a weak excuse.”
The woman in question proposes some kind of contract. A contract team men is obliged to fullfill now whereas for team women there is no future obligation whatsoever. He has to die now she may have future children (or abort them or not conceive at all).

Yes, but it is worse. She is shocked and angered by the thought that others might not share her view. Others should love her life over their own with the same fervour that she loves her life over others.

Its becoming increasingly transparent that [most?/all?] Women see Men [in general and individually] as expendable/disposable as the mood/need arises. We see this in divorce and child custody and in the WACF demand on the Costa Concordia.

I truly believe that if in the future there are food shortages and misandric governments institute a WACF policy of food distribution that Women will overwhelmingly support this and would shame Men who disagreed with this.

If a Man chooses not to eat so that his child can do so that is self sacrificing, noble and understandable. But Men have just as much right to eat as Women and Children they are not related to. Men have just as much of a stake in society as Women and Children, rather than being treated as second class disposable citizens.

To those who think that perhaps I’m being paranoid – Haiti Women Only food distribution has set a precedent for future policy and is at the very least a big red flag/warning indicator for those who are concerned about these issues.

I have stopped calling myself a feminist, although I do believe in equality, because the term has become so tainted politically. I believe women should have opportunities and choices, but I do not believe that we are superior. And I was so poisoned in my postgraduate work that I have come to really hate the term. But perhaps I should have qualified that better.

This is important insight. I’ve always assumed Sheila was simply profoundly misguided due to being so incredibly naive. She comes off as a sheltered housewife who can’t see feminism destroying the culture and the church because she can’t fathom what feminism is or how prevalent the mindset is. Given this and her I declare, I’ve never seen any Christian women acting like entitled feminists in my church or even on the internet (I paraphrase) reply to Deti when she has previously acknowledged that this is rampant amongst Christian women tells me that she isn’t naive at all. I have to give her credit; she is extremely convincing in her naive act, and it is quite cunning of her.

Jack, this was the point that I was making in the column, so I’m glad you agree. Feminism started the trend.

What I really don’t appreciate, though, is all of the comments today saying “many Christian women have fallen into this attitude as well.” How? What are we doing? What am I doing wrong? I write this blog specifically to help Christian women understand men, validate, support, and respect the men they are married to, and to think of those men’s needs and to try to meet them. I write a lot about understanding that men are different than we are, and that we are to respect and honour that difference. And what I write is really no different from what is preached in the pulpit and what is written in the women’s blogosphere that I am part of.

I just don’t want people slandering “Christian women”. If you want to say explicitly what you are upset about, then we can talk, but please do not slander those who come to this blog. 🙂

To paraphrase: It’s just those nasty feminists doing that, while I’m just a traditional Christian housewife (who happens to have a masters degree in women’s studies and only avoids calling herself a feminist because she feels the term has become politicized).

Yet she knows exactly what is going on as she pointed out when she agreed with my statement: Christian women as a group are not used to being told they have any obligations. Ever. Shiela wrote:

Joy and Lori–I know. That is an OUCH comment, isn’t it? But I do think it’s true. In general, the church is very hard on men and very easy on women, and yet it is women who instigate most divorces. We need to get back to the message that we have a responsibility and an obligation to make our marriages work, even if those marriages do not make us happy. But that goes against conventional wisdom, and seems mean. We really are fighting upstream!

Sheila is a >false prophet. She will always have some good things to say to mix in with her narrative – feminism dressed up as Christianity.

Matt 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

As I wrote back when D posted about Sheila advocating wife initiated divorce as justified for a husband watching porn, since in her expressed view a porn addiction is equivalent to adultery:

“On second thought, a thought just popped in my head. Sheila is a feminist….the worst kind. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

She appears to be “pro-marriage” but she’s spreading marriage and family destroying memes amongst the very people who are supposed to be the last vanguard of the bedrock of Christian-based civilization.

Think I’m making an overblown charge?

Let’s take the title of her blog – To Love, Honor & Vacuum.

On the surface it appears to be a call for Christian women to be better housewives. But exactly what is that title really imply? It’s a distortion of the common Christian marriage vow a wife makes at the altar – Love, Honor and OBEY.

Whether it was deliberate or subconscious, I still think it’s a subversive meme that aims at one of the Bible’s direct, unambiguous tenets regarding the institution of marriage…wives, submit to your husbands.

Just as the newly married, “modern” Princess of England had the word’s OBEY taken out of her Anglican Church vows — just like her adulterous, scandalous, deceased mother-in-law did — this “pro-marriage” Christian has replaced the vow of wifely obedience to her husband with a trivial domestic household chore using a modern appliance.

The problem is not Pro-marriage Christian women. It’s pro-Divorce justifications couched in the veneer of pro-Marriage Christianity.”

Last November, when D first began calling attention to her false ministry, I did several different searches on her site. I used various search terms all regarding submission, Ephesians 5:22, wifely submission, etc. All terms to see if Sheila ever discussed the biblical model of Patriarchal marriage.

The word “submission” did not even appear on her blog ANYWHERE. Nor was there any reference or mention of Ephesians 5:22….that is until Elspeth submitted an article shortly thereafter directly addressing the topic.

Now, seeing what others have dug up on her blog regarding her degree in Women Studies, it’s quite clear why she’s preaching a brand of Christianity suffused with misandry and feminism.

Keep hammering her Dalrock. She deserves to be exposed for the ravening wolf that she is.

@Dalrock
I’m simply not conviced Sheila’s sinister. The “contract” she and the other women propose was the contract between the sexes for a long time. Men die in the present because of petty stuff (like women’s validation or for their emotional experience), women may or may not do something in return in the future. This female mindset isn’t new. We are not discussing anything new.
If I express the case in point in other words,it becomes clear: women feel entitled (to the lives of men), yet are free of accountability or responsibility. Men on the other hand have all the responsibilities and get nothing.

But some men aren’t willing to die for petty stuff anymore. Some men point the injustice out. And I think women like Sheila are confused because men start to question the status quo. And women like Sheila need time to come to terms with it. It’s against their core beliefs.

The “contract” she and the other women propose was the contract between the sexes for a long time.

Wrong.

The contract of Patriarchy was based on the idea of women as property. Either a Father or a husband owned her.

The social contract of women and children first was the tacit agreement that every woman had a man somewhere who “owned” her. Under Patriarchy, I’d sacrifice my male life for a random female, because men everywhere would be willing to do the same for the women I love and care about (wife, daughter, sister, mother).

It was a code for men, between men. Women broke the contract between the sexes in their demand for equality. Now men no longer “own” women, we have no obligation to each other.

We men have a new understanding: I don’t have to protect yours, you don’t have to protect mine…that is because they are now equal and free of our ownership.

You really did catch on to that before I did. I was thinking of your post when Anon Reader and CL pointed out that she has a masters in Women’s Studies and declined calling herself a feminist because the word had become “politicized”.

Exactly, Women are still expecting, nay demanding that Men abide by the old pre-feminism patriachal code of chivalry towards them and then being confused and disgusted when increasing numbers of Men are refusing to do so. These Women are then resorting to shaming language to try and coerce Men back to their old “duties”

The contract of Patriarchy was based on the idea of women as property. Either a Father or a husband owned her.

The social contract of women and children first was the tacit agreement that every woman had a man somewhere who “owned” her. Under Patriarchy, I’d sacrifice my male life for a random female, because men everywhere would be willing to do the same for the women I love and care about (wife, daughter, sister, mother).”
You seem to employ faulty or imcomplete reasoning. ‘Women and children first’ most likely killed (most of) the “owners” every time it was enforced. (92% of the men on the RMS Titanic) It is as if the owners needed to prove themselves by dying for their property. Men surely were some strange owners. And even if I think long and hard I know of no owner alike.

WACF means that the right thing to do in a rescue situation is to go against your family/blood interests and give preference to the ideology of the state system. In other words, to let your brothers and teen-aged sons slowly die in freezing water in order to rescue some old, infertile women you have never met and with whom you have nothing in common – in obedience to the notion of “Being British”. And only British.
Indeed, WACF never has appeared outside of an Anglo Saxon context beginning in the 19th century. Would have any of the ancients sacrificed their own sons for the sake of anonymous “women”?
Even the notion of chivalry was unknown in Europe until after the Crusades and it only applied to the upper classes. Peasant women were not pedestalized…

Dang! Keoni really knocked it out of the park (Jan 28, 11:57 AM)! That is about as penetrating of an analysis as I have seen in awhile! I’d been leaning towards Mrs. Gregoire being evil, as opposed to just stupid, and between Keoni’s analysis and reading about her “credentials”, it looks like she’s pretty solidly evil.

On the bright side, the more women who internalize her foolishness, and, say, divorce their husbands for viewing porn, the quicker the whole system will collapse.

It is as if the owners needed to prove themselves by dying for their property. Men surely were some strange owners. And even if I think long and hard I know of no owner alike.

I’m not making a value or morality judgement. I’m only pointing out that WACF was part of the code of Chivalrous Patriarchy….and under Patriarchy, it was a man’s world.

WACF was a social pact between men, not an agreement between men and women.

Women had no direct say in the affairs of society back then, remember? The feminists have never let us forget!

Ergo, WACF was the agreement amongst men.

When the feminists broke the Patriarchy, they broke the whole damn thing, including the real benefits women had under Patriarchy .

That is, really, what modern day white knights are….deluded men who think the code of Patriarchy should still be enforced, even if the entire society and legal system has changed it’s meaning into nothing more than enslavement of the male gender to the female imperative.

She’s just tailoring her message to achieve maximum market share. She knows what notes to hit to appeal to the ladies who would buy her books, attend her seminars or urge their Church to bring her in for a guest “ministry.” In short, Sheila is merely marketing Cafeteria Christianity that appeals to female solipsism.

It’s a profitable gig.

Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Several years ago during a discussion with my wife, we concurred that should we both be aboard a sinking ship, I would surrender the single seat left in a life boat to her. Under no circumstances was I to surrender that seat to a strange woman.

The recent events aboard the Italian cruise ship have prompted me to add this. Should ever there be a single place available aboard a life boat, and I was floating in icy waters with, say Hillary Clinton, I would shove her away post haste. There are simply too many important things left to do with the rest of my life.

To become an authority on patriarchy/chivalry, readers should familiarize themselves with the civilizations of the Middle East, Far East, Africa, and South America, locales where chivalry in any form was/is unknown; yet where the populations are growing at fantastic rates compared to North America and Western Europe.

Truth be known, warriors from groups across the world often carried harlots with them on raids and other war like excursions against the enemy. When the going got rough, or there was not enough food to go around the harlots (women) were dispatched. This was because the warriors were far more important to the well being of the war party and the nation, than was the weaker sex. (Check out Julius Caesar’s assault on Paris during his conquest of Gaul for some graphic material on the subject.).
WACF was a strange concept adopted only very recently, during last half of Nineteenth Century. And by the English and Americans almost alone. If it has not already perished, it will soon perish, overwhelmed by the tidal wave of Latin Americans and Middle Easterners engulfing our cities and cultures.
Chris

“I have stopped calling myself a feminist, although I do believe in equality, because the term has become so tainted politically”

drops the tag “feminist” not b/c it’s evil, destroys fatherhood and masculinity, fills cages with good guys, or makes fourth class citizens out of boys and men, but b/c the word is now “politicized” (those Hateful Men turned a perfectly good word and system into something questionable, and possibly derogatory, therefore continued use of the word may reflect negatively on . . . wait for it now . . . ME!!

destroyed males: no problem (see “Costa Concordia” supra)

possible negative reflection on Me: priority item

like Susan Walsh, when she was called out on this blog, Sheila then turns from her beloved-but-tainted “feminism” to its more cunning synonym, “equality”

after all, we can all agree on Equality can’t we? what fair and sane person would argue against Equality? only terrorists and misogynists

like Liberty and Egalitarianism, Equality in practice = female supremacy in every sphere of western life, with attendant derogation and oppression of maleness

she bathes herself in the self-absorbed victimization of feminism in college, drags her matriarchal assumptions with her into the “church” and then sets herself up as a “Minister” to dispense “advice” to others

like Elizabeth Prata at the Endtimes blog i cited, Sheila wields the bible but in fact forms her certainties about the world from her gynosupremacist educational sistems, government lies, and media propaganda . . . all the “Christian” women glued to their Special Victims Crime Unit television shows that reinforce the privileged, judgmental, vengeful, misandrist values and actions of her kulture

the “pastors” that she and her sisters patronize and fund criticise the low-hanging fruit of abortion and pornography, but in fact support the vast majority of mammy babylon’s social, political, and legal policies/ institutions (no different than the Left)

like “Christian” wives/women, the pastors have become experts at shaming and manipulating men

Latest Scourge for HyperHysteria from the pulp-pits: the vast networks of Human Trafficking of Females into Sexual Slavery that have already overtaken the US

(oh! the salacious thrills they get outta that one! vast untouched, unexploited oilfields of virgin Victimization and Vengeance!)

these women pretend nearness to God; waiting in momentary expectation of being Raptured into heaven with Jesus, where doubtless they will agitate for Equality with God (after having jettisoned the word “feminism” that was so cruelly and unfairly Tainted)

Rum says:
January 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm
WACF means that the right thing to do in a rescue situation is to go against your family/blood interests and give preference to the ideology of the state system. In other words, to let your brothers and teen-aged sons slowly die in freezing water in order to rescue some old, infertile women you have never met and with whom you have nothing in common – in obedience to the notion of “Being British”. And only British.
Indeed, WACF never has appeared outside of an Anglo Saxon context beginning in the 19th century. Would have any of the ancients sacrificed their own sons for the sake of anonymous “women”?

This may not be relevant, but every once in a while I wonder why feminism has advanced the most in Anglo-Saxon countries. Probably more than one reason.

I noticed that there was only discussion about the “chivalry” aspect of “Women and Children First”. There was a much more practical element to this “rule” as well. Using WACF meant that the men could get the useless and hysterical elements of the group out of the way, while the men dealt with the problem. So in the shipwreck situation, remove those persons who could not be relied upon to act calmly and rationally first so that when it really starts to hit the fan, the people left are those who can act calmly and rationally. But now that we live in a day and age where no one acts calmly or rationally, it’s everyone for themselves.

Keoni: “I’m not making a value or morality judgement. I’m only pointing out that WACF was part of the code of Chivalrous Patriarchy….and under Patriarchy, it was a man’s world.”
Your consideration is appreciated. I’m agreeing, that’s the version of patriarchy that is sold in the shops.

On the other hand I’m merely stating male disposability is at the heart of this, as it is at WACF. The concept of men being inferior, of lesser value and more disposable than women. The concept has seen a sharp rise in the age of feminism. The belief of male disposability is – I think – shared by most (christian) western women today. So to answer the question Dalrock posed, yes, Sheila Gregoire thinks her life is more precious than any male life. And I think she and her club are stunned, shocked and appalled to find out men nowadays love their lives and don’t want to throw it away in a pointless gesture. And WACF if there are enough lifeboats is a pointless gesture, even when white knighting big time. (I’m not implying men ever died happily.) Why is she stunned, shocked and appalled? Because it goes against every internalized norm she as a woman has ever learned. And to change that core belief of hers will take a lot of time and suffering on her part (cognitive dissonance is painful).

like Susan Walsh, when she was called out on this blog, Sheila then turns from her beloved-but-tainted “feminism” to its more cunning synonym, “equality”

It’s actually worse than that. When they start doing this, it allows them to act as if “feminism” is something lesbians living on the planet, Pluto, do as opposed to something that is pervasively attacking every man here on Earth. This gives them the “nobody I know is acting like that” defense that Sheila Gregoire uses and “feminism is dying” defense that Susan Walsh uses to attack anyone who is seriously working against feminism.

“When they start doing this, it allows them to act as if “feminism” is something lesbians living on the planet, Pluto, do as opposed to something that is pervasively attacking every man here on Earth”

precisely PMAT

feminism/woman-worship has long been the very air we breathe in both the church and in civil society

now that female supremacy is accepted as the (enforced) norm everywhere in western culture, it’s safe to back off the word, and attribute it to Plutonians and other “radicals”

thus, “equality” is trotted out — the subterfuge (unconscious or otherwise) never stops with females, which is why they were commanded to be silent and in subjection when it comes to religious/spiritual leadership and teaching

“Christian” women, however, like all women everywhere, assume that command doesnt apply to them (see Chief Keoni’s comments on “obey”)

i’m glad Susan Walsh states her (at least superficial) opposition to feminism, yet she persists in rebellion and pride, like her western sisters

it can all just be Talked and Negotiated out, doncha see? change a word here, change a word there

the distancing of some females from the word “feminism” is directly related to the emergence of your “men’s movement” — as with the “man up” tactics, it reveals fear on the part of women/manginas/elites that the free whupping is over, the matrix code is crumbling

Rmaxd: Our children are now grown, and providing for themselves. The decision to give up my life boat seat to my wife (wife only) was made over her objections. Furthermore, a number of “courage” tests have been conducted over the past ten years. Results: women have been found to fear death, pain and calamities of all sorts over men by wide margins. Fear is the reason the ship accident and similar imagined nightmares leave Sheila and Company tied up in such knots. That is also the main reason for my insisting that wife could climb into the boat ahead of me–as opposed to an unknown such as Hillary Clinton, who would not be permitted to do so. If you are curious will email a copy of Raymond Rainville’s (U.C. Berkeley) courage tests.

ybm: There is nothing racist in my statement regarding the people of the Middle East and Latin America overwhelming our cities and culture. It is simply a statement of fact.

If you want to discuss “Human Biodiversity” there are plenty of places like oneSTDV and SBPD to do so. Alimony, paternity fraud, domestic violence, misandrist culture and discrimination in work and university placement are issues for black, brown, white, yellow, red and purple.

I have more in common than a black or latino man than any white woman. They are not the ones who seek to destroy you as a male in the west, YOUR OWN WOMEN ACT AGAINST YOU.

Why do you hate white women? And why do you have an affinity for black and latino men?

I don’t think it’s that ybm necessarily has an affinity for black and Latino men. I think he rightly notes that in the current cultural climate, good, upstanding men of whatever race have more in common and more reason to be allies with one another than they do with a feminist woman no matter what her race.

dalrock,
“I still want to give the benefit of the doubt to Sheila on this.”

Why? How much HATRED do you have to see from women before you simply accept the truth.

WOMEN HATE US MEN NOW.

Does 250 out of 250 women condoning the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse for FOUR YEARS mean nothing to you as a statistical sample? Look at the HATRED that has been leveled at me for FOUR YEARS for having the temerity for standing up for my rights. MANY of them “good christian woman”.

One of the problems with MRAs, and there are MANY, is that they are too gutless to call women the cold, callous, cruel, vindictive, liars and hypocrites they have CHOSEN to be. I went to the trouble of collecting information like this. It is a shame that the leading MRA writers choose to IGNORE the evidence that I worked so hard to create at the cost of all that I had held dear.

I read your article about the shipwreck in Italy, where you were suggesting that women should have gone before men.

Tell me, why do you hate men so much that you think men should be forced to DIE simply because of their gender?

Western women have been screaming about “equal rights” for the past 50 years. Therefore, men and women should be treated EXACTLY the same, since that is what you western women DEMANDED. But now you are such a hypocrite, that you want to demand that MEN should go last and thus risk death, solely based on their gender? Gosh, the hypocrisy of you western women knows no bounds.

I have created a thread at the website Crimes Against Fathers to expose you as the man-hater that you are. Anyone that googles your name will also now see evidence of your man-hatred. I am also going to be writing to your employer Maple Creek News and ask them why they are employing a man-hating feminist like yourself.

Hate to say it guys but there are plently of female supremacists and male white nights in church. You have to let them know that they are not living right- God is the ultiamte judge of evil works and it is amazing to see the evil works performed and evil words coming out of women and men’s mouths today. Thank God I only have to pay for my sins and not others.

Look at the comments on that article. The only use of men is to save the innocent and their loved ones. It’s no longer the act of kindness or the act of courage that a great man bestowed upon those he loved. It is now to be expected from every single man. Those men are indeed heroes, but instead of using their tale of sacrifice to invoke future men to greatness and to achieve in their lives. It will be used to shame men to give up their lives for useless skanky hoes, the likes of Susan Walsh and others of the hook-up culture.

As for Sheila, she’ll probably say the men deserved it, since it was a man who did the shooting and the women were once again innocent. Men’s only use is to die in service of women. The same women who tear them to shreds, treat them like crap and will never ever give them the time of day. As for these men, they’re in a far better place where God will truly bestow upon them love and kindness. Unlike here on Earth.

I’m amazed at the amount of sweeping statements in comments on the quoted blog and in the comments here. It’s farcical. The quoted blog was idiotic – lifeboat seats should not be allocated on the basis of sex. They did many things 100+ years ago that we wouldn’t and shouldn’t do today. But to then extrapolate that to make sweeping statements about all women or all men is just vacant thinking.

WACF had to do with children being the future and women being the progenitors of said children, hence the future. I don’t think it applies anymore because our planet is over populated and many women opt out of having kids altogether now, hence their lives are no more important than mens’ are.

You could fit every human being on the planet in the state of Texas. The planet is not over populated.

You are on to something though. Women used to get much of their value from child bearing. From an economically secular point of view, what makes women of today valuable? As a whole they certainly don’t produce in numbers anything near what men do. The types of jobs they have are usually not that beneficial for the perpetuation of society. In fact many of the jobs women today occupy are a burden to tax payers while many others were denied to more qualified males. I find it a strange coincidence that it is these types of women who place the most stock in devaluing men.